Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields
Date
Msg-id 8f2034ca-7677-77cb-38f0-497f92f58fa0@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 07.10.21 21:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
>> On 10/07/21 12:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Can we make the addition be a string not a number, so that we
>>> could include something more useful than "1234" in the error
>>> message?
> 
>> Just using a string like "EDB v" + something would probably rule out
>> collisions in practice. To be more formal about it, something like
>> the tag URI scheme [0] could be recommended.
> 
> Hmm.  Personally I'm more interested in the string being comprehensible to
> end users than in whether there's any formal rule guaranteeing uniqueness.
> I really doubt that we will have any practical problem with collisions,
> so I'd rather go with something like "EnterpriseDB v1.2.3" than with
> something like "tag:enterprisedb.com,2021:1.2.3".

Yeah, just a string should be fine.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: compression dictionaries for JSONB
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing